Midway discusses affordability tools after developers say deep subsidies needed

MIDWAY, Utah — Midway officials spent a workshop session reviewing data on housing costs and potential local tools to preserve or create affordable housing for essential workers, but made no formal policy changes. Staff and participants discussed income and price data, a private developer proposal for rental units, and a range of zoning and subsidy options; staff was asked to return with draft code and policy options in about two months.

The discussion centered on why starter homes are scarce and what Midway can control locally. Presenters noted Utah’s statewide policy push to create starter homes and said Wasatch County’s area median income and local housing prices together place homeownership out of reach for many service‑sector and essential workers who commute into the area.

Participants reviewed multiple data points presented at the meeting: Utah’s state-level goal to add 35,000 starter homes, Wasatch County area median income (AMI) figures cited in staff materials (about $81,008), and local listing prices (presenters said the county average listing price observed that morning was about $1.7 million). Staff and a consultant estimated construction and development costs commonly place per‑unit costs for new for‑sale units in the $250,000–$300,000 range (construction only), and that closing the gap between production cost and an affordable price would require deep subsidies in the order of roughly $200,000–$300,000 per unit for starter housing in Midway’s market.

A private landowner and developer concept reviewed at the meeting would place about 70 rental units on roughly 11 acres; the developer told the group they could restrict 20 of those units to lower rents but said the project needed a much larger overall unit count (near 200 units in the presenter’s estimate) or significant public subsidy to make more units rent‑restricted. The presenter also said that, under current assumptions and market conditions, the project would yield a developer return near 6%, well below typical target returns they described.

Staff and council members discussed an array of local tools that could be considered to encourage affordability without changing base zoning citywide: overlay zones that allow higher density only when paired with permanent affordability restrictions, reduced minimum unit sizes or parking requirements, transfer of development rights for preservation of historic buildings, deferred or phased payment of impact and permit fees tied to occupancy, and targeted legislative development agreements for specific properties (for example, a trailer park site discussed as a potential location for an affordable transition). Accessory dwelling units (ADUs) were discussed as one of the more straightforward near‑term options if paired with enforceable rent or deed restrictions. Participants also discussed manufactured or modular housing as a potential option if code changes allowed them.

State and federal program constraints surfaced repeatedly. Staff and consultants explained that some large subsidy programs (for example, the federal Low Income Housing Tax Credit program) require fair‑housing compliant application processes and cannot legally prioritize ‘‘local essential workers’’ over other eligible applicants. They also said state scoring systems for tax credit allocations favor sites with certain amenities and proximity to services, making Midway a lower‑scoring location for competitive applications compared with downtown Heber or larger transit‑served locations.

Council members emphasized a desire for long‑term protections on any units created using public subsidy or zoning incentives — for example, deed restrictions or 55‑year affordability covenants commonly used in tax‑credit projects — and also expressed reluctance to offer incentives that simply increased overall density without locking in affordability. Several speakers said density alone does not guarantee affordable outcomes in high‑demand markets, because market forces can push even higher‑density projects into market‑rate pricing.

Next steps: staff (Michael and Katie, identified in the meeting as planning staff) were asked to research overlay‑zone language, ADU program options, deed‑restriction enforcement mechanisms, examples from other cities, and legal limits on density reductions and compensation. Staff said they could prepare drafts and return to the council’s work session in roughly two months. No ordinance or formal commitment to specific incentives or subsidies was voted on at the workshop.

Votes at a glance: A single procedural motion to adjourn was made and seconded at the end of the meeting and carried without opposition. No other formal votes or ordinance actions were recorded during the housing workshop.